This site has been inspired by the work of Dr David Korten who argues that capitalism is at a critical juncture due to environmental, economic and social breakdown. This site argues for alternatives to capitalism in order to create a better world.

In recent years, a number of important discussions have emerged
among and between environmentalists and solidarity activists.

None has
generated quite as much heat as the debate over extractive industries,
particularly in South America.

This is perhaps unsurprising given what’s
at stake: South America is home to some of the world’s largest and most
important natural resource deposits. It is also a region dominated by
progressive governments that have taken strong stances internationally
in support of action on climate change, while facing criticism at home
for their positions on extractive industries.

'Extractivism '

The debate has led to the coining of the
term “extractivism”. While almost non-existent in leftist discourse only
a few years ago, extractivism has become a central focus for many
progressives.
Talk of resource extraction and
extractive industries usually refers to mining and hydrocarbons
exploitation, but also covers industrial-scale agriculture, forestry and
even fishing.

However, as Ecuadorian economist Alberto
Acosta explains, the term extractivism covers much more than this.
Extractivism refers to a type of economic model that is dependent on the
large-scale removal (or “extraction”) and export of natural resources.

Moreover, Acosta notes that extractivism
is not a new phenomenon. It has acted for centuries as “a mechanism of
colonial and neocolonial plunder and appropriation”. During this period, countries in the
global North used their dominant position to industrialise their own
economies, while converting colonies into mere raw material exporters.

Although most of these colonies are today
independent countries, their economies remain highly dependent on raw
material exports to the North. Extractivism has also led to a tremendous
redistribution of wealth away from the global South.

This has been facilitated by the
entrenched monopoly that multinational corporations headquartered in the
global North maintain over the technology and machinery required to run
these capital-intensive industries based in the South.

Acosta explains that extractivism has not
only resulted in environmental devastation, but also “high levels of
underemployment, unemployment and poverty, while the distribution of
income and wealth [has become] even more unequal”.

Understood in this manner, it is evident
why all progressives in South America should oppose extractivism as an
economic model that has deepened the region’s economic dependency on the
global North, wreaked havoc on the environment and destroyed the
livelihoods of millions.

This also makes clear the magnitude of
the problem facing those who have set themselves the task of overcoming
extractivism and all of its negative economic, environmental and social
effects.

This approach is perhaps driven by his
sense (one I share) that extractivism may become a “wedge issue” that
could unnecessarily divide social justice and environmental activists
who have been working together for years.

Fitz notes that the two sides often “talk
past each other” while rarely addressing the “multiple problems” and
“fundamental issues” raised in the debate.

For example, he writes that
“anti-extractivists often write of horrible effects of extractivism
without delving deeply into the question, ‘How can Latin America lift
people out of poverty?’”

Given the importance that
“pro-extractivists” give to tackling poverty, Fitz argues that
“anti-extractivists” need to “devote more time to explaining how the
poor will improve their quality of life without additional national
income” that extractive industries could provide.

Fitz also says “pro-extractivists write
well of the need to reduce poverty” but pay “little more than lip
service” to criticism of the environmental impacts of extractive
industries.

It’s not enough for “pro-extractivists”
to simply point to improvements in terms of new housing, hospitals and
schools, argues Fitz. They also need to “demonstrate that these
improvements outweigh the enormous [environmental] destruction” that
accompany the extractive industries that fund many of these government
projects.

In many ways, the weaknesses Fitz
highlights in the different sides of the debate reflect the very real
challenge facing both left governments and social movements in South
America that oppose extractivism.

That is, how can we best meet peoples’
basic needs, while overcoming dependency on extractive industries and
ensuring that resources are protected for generations to come.

At times, the overwhelming scale of
poverty and need to provide an immediate response to the demands of
voters can lead some to want to prioritise development projects,
irrespective of whether these projects aid us in moving towards a
post-extractivist society.

On the other hand, the sentiment that
doing anything to stop climate change is better than nothing can lead to
the adoption of positions that, while formally anti-extractivist, do
little to overcome economic dependency or promote a more sustainable
economic model.

Yet the struggle to overcome extractivism
cannot simply be seen as an environmental issue, nor can it be put off
until after we have dealt with pressing social problems. Instead, it
requires us to simultaneously grapple with both of these issues, at the
same time as we beginning taking steps towards a post-extractivist
economic model.
Anti-extractivism or anti-extraction?

Reaching agreement on this point would
help us go some way towards overcoming a simplistic framing of the
debate that pits “anti-extractivists” against “pro-extractivists”, and
to an understanding that almost everyone in the debate favours moving
beyond extractivism.

Fitz however insists on the validity of
this dichotomy, saying it “distinguishes between two points of view
which contrast in whether they desire to increase or decrease
extraction”. The problem here is that Fitz uses the
terms extractivism and extraction interchangeably, even though (as noted
above) they are two different things.

In reality, being against extraction does
not necessarily make you anti-extractivist, nor does supporting certain
extraction make you pro-extractivist. For example, there are numerous
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), many of which are funded by
governments from the global North, who campaign in the global South
against all extractive projects. Yet they offer little in the way of an alternative to extractivism.

Instead they promote “carbon off-set”
schemes that pay communities in the global South to protect certain
forest areas to “offset” the continuing pollution caused by extractive
companies in the North.

Numerous indigenous and environmental
groups have denounced such schemes as tantamount to privatising forests.
They serve to entrench inequalities between industrialised countries in
the global North and those dependent on extractive industry exports -
without promoting any meaningful reduction in polluting practices.

Alternatively, specific extractive projects could contribute in some way to overcoming extractivism. One example is Bolivia’s proposal to
extract and industrialise lithium, critical among other things to the
production of electric cars.

If done properly, this could have an
important effect on decreasing dependency on petrol, and contribute to
an overall reduction in the need for oil extraction.

Of course, many other factors would also
need to be taken into consideration: state control over the
industrialisation process, ensuring processed lithium is used for
environmental purposes, consultation with local communities, strict
environmental safeguards, among others.

The point remains however that viewing
the debate through the simplistic prism of for or against extraction
could see environmentalists rejecting projects with the potential to
help us overcome extractivism, while supporting “alternatives” that
simply maintain the status quo.

Governments vs social movements?

Another false dichotomy that Fitz
continues to perpetuate is describing the debate as between rural
indigenous and social movements that are “anti-extractivist” and
progressive “extractivist” governments.

Fitz talks about “the enormity of
movements raging all across Latin America” against mining and
agribusiness. Yet this statement is an exaggeration at best. The number of “anti-extractivist” protests is in fact tiny when compared to overall protest numbers.

Take for example Bolivia, one of the most
conflictive places in the region. A study of protests that occurred
between 2009-2011 - the most conflictive period so far for the Evo
Morales government - shows that conflicts over issues of land, natural
resources and the environment made up only 7.2% of all protests.

In comparison, 20.2% revolved around
peoples’ economic situation, 14.9% were over wages and workplace issues,
and 11.5% focused on obtaining access to basic services.

Together, the number of social protests
relating to issues of poverty and basic services numbered well over
1000, far more than the “enormity” of 195 protests against mining across
all of Latin America that Fitz makes reference to.

Furthermore, if we delve more deeply into those protests, we find that even most of these were not “anti-extractivist”.

The same study reveals that most of the
disputes that occurred in Bolivia in relation to issues of land, natural
resources and the environment were not in opposition to extraction, but
rather over who got to control extraction. A large majority involved
disputes among and between cooperative miners, local communities and
mineworkers who, as a result of booming mineral prices, were competing
for access to lucrative mines.

Without denying that there have been a
number of protests by indigenous groups (and others) against particular
extractive projects, there is little evidence to back the assertion that
we are witnessing a generalised trend towards anti-extractivist
movements anywhere in the region.

Who's silencing who?

Given that overcoming extractivism is a
complex issue that requires confronting multiple social, economic and
environmental problems, we should expect a diversity of debates,
conflicts and positions.

Surprisingly, Fitz accuses me of
labelling opposition to progressive governments as divisive, and of
opposing debate on the left.

Yet that is the complete opposite of what I wrote in an earlier article on extractivism.
There I argued that given the complexity of overcoming extractivism
“different views would always exist between and within social movements
regarding these issues”.

As such it is just as wrong to accuse
those who oppose certain projects as being “manipulated by
anti-environmental NGOs” (which Fitz falsely accuses me of having done),
as it is to label those who support certain projects as dupes of the
government or multinationals.

It does however remain the case that the
best way we can encourage and support these debates is by opposing any
meddling by foreign powers (be they governments, transnational
corporations or NGOs) that always seek to advance their aims by stoking
divisions.

I also argued that, beyond any immediate
differences these movements may momentarily have, all of their struggles
share an important commonality in that they are all “directed against
the devastating social, economic and environmental impacts of
imperialist exploitation and towards the struggle for a better life”.

As such, they all deserve to be heard and treated as legitimate actors.

Yet, when we simplistically frame all
conflicts as between “extractivist” governments and “anti-extractivist”
critics, we not only perpetuate a false dichotomy, but tend to distort
and even silence the voices of the majority of those fighting the
impacts of extractivism.

Solidarity

A more holistic view of what would be
required to overcome extractivism and all of its social, economic and
environmental impacts, is also vital to our solidarity work at home. We should be very hesitant to accept any
simplistic dichotomy (anti-extractivist/pro-extractivist,
governments/social movements) when it is obvious that we are dealing
with a very complex issue.

Better understanding extractivism should
also allow us to realise that the best way to fight extractivism in the
global South is by focusing on the main culprits, namely governments and
transnationals based in the North.

If we understand all this, we can easily
propose an alternative to Fitz’s somewhat ludicrous suggestions that
supporting progressive governments means “solidarity movements need to
advocate the purchase of [fossil fuels]” or “stand in solidarity with
‘progressive’ production of GMOs”.

A much better campaign focus (to either
promoting the purchase or boycotting/sanctioning imports of fossil
fuels) is demanding climate justice via the transfer of technology and
funding to the global South so that they may begin to move their
economies away from extractivism.

Such a campaign focus would allow us to
both squarely target the main culprits, and provide an avenue to link up
with all those fighting the environmental, social and economic effects
of extractivism.

It would mean that we are not placing
demands on some of the poorest people in the world to shoulder the
burden for something they are not responsible for, and instead provide
them with the means by which to meet peoples’ needs while protecting the
environment.

In this sense, Fitz is right to conclude
that “extractivism in Latin America is a global question of what type of
society we are striving to create”. He is also correct to focus on the
need to “share the wealth”, but this, just like the fight against
climate change, has to be viewed globally.

Just as no country alone can overcome climate change, no country alone will be able to overcome extractivism.

Campaigning for climate justice, a term
that ironically has increasingly become absent in the debate as others
such as extractivism have become so common, must therefore be seen as
vital to any genuine campaign to reduce extraction and overcome
extractivism.